On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:49:30AM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 05:56:51PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 11:01, Chester Lin <c...@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Mike and Ard,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:37:39PM +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 02:32:50PM +0300, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > > (adding Mike)
> > > > >
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > > > In this case the kernel failed to reserve cma, which should hit the 
> > > > > > issue of
> > > > > > memblock_limit=0x1000 as I had mentioned in my patch description. 
> > > > > > The first
> > > > > > block [0-0xfff] was scanned in adjust_lowmem_bounds(), but it did 
> > > > > > not align
> > > > > > with PMD_SIZE so the cma reservation failed because the 
> > > > > > memblock.current_limit
> > > > > > was extremely low. That's why I expand the first reservation from 1 
> > > > > > PAGESIZE to
> > > > > > 1 PMD_SIZE in my patch in order to avoid this issue. Please kindly 
> > > > > > let me know
> > > > > > if any suggestion, thank you.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > This looks like it is a separate issue. The memblock/cma code should
> > > > > not choke on a reserved page of memory at 0x0.
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps Russell or Mike (cc'ed) have an idea how to address this?
> > > >
> > > > Presuming that the last memblock dump comes from the end of
> > > > arm_memblock_init() with the this memory map
> > > >
> > > > memory[0x0] [0x0000000000000000-0x0000000000000fff], 0x0000000000001000 
> > > > bytes flags: 0x4
> > > > memory[0x1] [0x0000000000001000-0x0000000007ef5fff], 0x0000000007ef5000 
> > > > bytes flags: 0x0
> > > > memory[0x2] [0x0000000007ef6000-0x0000000007f09fff], 0x0000000000014000 
> > > > bytes flags: 0x4
> > > > memory[0x3] [0x0000000007f0a000-0x000000003cb3efff], 0x0000000034c35000 
> > > > bytes flags: 0x0
> > > >
> > > > adjust_lowmem_bounds() will set the memblock_limit (and respectively 
> > > > global
> > > > memblock.current_limit) to 0x1000 and any further memblock_alloc*() will
> > > > happily fail.
> > > >
> > > > I believe that the assumption for memblock_limit calculations was that 
> > > > the
> > > > first bank has several megs at least.
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if this hack would help:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > > > index d9a0038..948e5b9 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mm/mmu.c
> > > > @@ -1206,7 +1206,7 @@ void __init adjust_lowmem_bounds(void)
> > > >                        * allocated when mapping the start of bank 0, 
> > > > which
> > > >                        * occurs before any free memory is mapped.
> > > >                        */
> > > > -                     if (!memblock_limit) {
> > > > +                     if (memblock_limit < PMD_SIZE) {
> > > >                               if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_start, PMD_SIZE))
> > > >                                       memblock_limit = block_start;
> > > >                               else if (!IS_ALIGNED(block_end, PMD_SIZE))
> > > >
> > >
> > > I applied this patch as well and it works well on rpi-2 model B.
> > >
> > 
> > Thanks, Chester, that is good to know.
> > 
> > However, afaict, this only affects systems where physical memory
> > starts at address 0x0, so I think we need a better fix.
> 
> This hack can be easily extended to handle systems with arbitrary start
> address, but it's still a hack...
> 
> > I know Mike has been looking into the NOMAP stuff lately, and your
> > original patch contains a hunk that makes this code (?) disregard
> > nomap memblocks. That might be a better approach.
> 
> I was actually looking how to replace NOMAP with something else to make
> memblock.memory consistent with actual physical memory banks. But this work
> is stashed for now.
> 
> I'm not sure that skipping NOMAP regions would be good enough.
> If I understand corrrectly, with Chester's original patch the reservation
> of PMD aligned chunk of 32M for the kernel made the first conv-mem region
> PMD aligned and then memblock_limit will be set to the end of this region.
> 
> Is there a reason for marking EFI_RESERVED_TYPE as NOMAP rather than simply
> reserve them with memblock_reserve()?
> 

Hi Mike,

I make this change in efistub so I am not sure if memblock_reserve() can be
linked by ld or not. I tried using efi_mem_reserve() but got a linker error of
undefined reference. Is there a better place to call memblock_reserve() after
efistub?

Thanks,
Chester

Reply via email to